SO we’ve lost another 60 vergées of countryside. That’s about 1.2m square feet of land or the equivalent of 20 football pitches.

This follows the States decision last week to use green fields in seven parishes in order to provide 350 new homes mainly for wrinklies. That’s not a disparaging remark about those over 55. In fact, I’m one of them and we make up more than a third of the population.

So there is plenty of demand for housing from this sector of the community, and the decision by the States to use green fields to house some of them was taken for the best possible reasons.
I just happen to believe it was totally wrong.

Perhaps I’m naïve, but I thought that you only rezoned land and were allowed to build on green fields if there was no alternative.

In this case there are plenty of alternatives that just weren’t investigated. A lot of evidence was produced in the States to show the demand, but precious little was said about possible ways of increasing supply in this sector. They just looked for the space that they decided was needed.

The alternatives wouldn’t be easy, of course. They would involve using ingenuity, forward thinking, perhaps more disruption and almost certainly more money.

They might have even taken more time than using the land rezoned by the States, although not much more time because it’s going to be several years before we see the results of the States decision. Indeed some alternatives could have produced results much sooner.

However, putting in the extra effort to find an alternative would have been worthwhile if it allowed us to keep as many green fields as possible.

Instead the States chose the easy way out. Take a vote and whoosh – the fields are gone.

I’m not even particularly concerned about whether the land was good agricultural land or not. It was not built on, and its loss is a loss to us all, not just farmers.

In any case, the States attitude to farmers now is to see them as guardians of the countryside and they get support as such. So it doesn’t make much difference whether the land was good farming land or not and now it definitely doesn’t make any difference.

But is the loss of land on five sites in the Countryside Zone and one in the green zone a Big Deal? After all, the proposition from the Planning department said that the filling in of gaps between houses was ‘a logical extension of the built-up area’.

The problem is that there is now so much development that everywhere has become a logical extension of the built-up area. The alternative view of course is that it is precisely because these sites are surrounded by buildings that they shouldn’t be built on.

But that was not the main argument put to the States. Much was made of the support from the Constables for the proposition (incidentally, I flatly refuse to use the ridiculous title Connétable, unless I happen to be speaking French at the time).

Would it be that the Constables were happy to see more homes for wrinklies on their patch because they will be running most of them? Perish the thought that there’s any kind of empire building going on here.

After all, the reason given for supporting the proposition was that parish homes for the elderly would not only contribute to the overall requirement for more homes, it would support and sustain the life and vitality of parish communities by ensuring that people, young and old, are provided with opportunities to live and engage in parish life.

Presumably those occupying the parish homes will be vetted to make sure they fit in with parish life and are prepared to join in parish bingo sessions.

Not everyone, of course, particularly wants to be within walking distance of the parish hall, but then this whole proposition is centred around the belief that they don¹t have any choice and they have to accept what is offered. Certainly this proposition did little to widen their choice.

But perhaps some wrinklies would prefer a little flat overlooking the sea.
Others might like to stay in their own home even if it is too big for them and unsuitable for someone who has reached the ripe old age of 55. If there were conversion grants available so that they could perhaps divide their property and put in suitable facilities, then they might be able to do so.

Then of course there might be alternative sites to build on, instead of green fields. There are several sites already in States hands that are grossly under-utilized. Why were they not considered?

The answer is that the planners didn’t think much would be lost by using up scarce fields. One parishioner complained that the loss of a field in Grouville would mean losing the view across the Common to France. That is not a material planning consideration, the Planning department said.

That perfectly reflects the attitude of the department, whose Minister told the States that his joint portfolio of environment and planning was incompatible at times. Once again, I must be very naïve. I thought that the whole purpose of planning was to protect the environment. Why else are the planners allowed to meddle?

A few sane voices were heard in the States, however, and one Deputy complained bitterly about the waste of space resulting from building single storey bungalows on some of the fields. But it appears that few other Members were worried about using up precious space.

Many of them, including the planning authorities, have the same attitude to the St Helier Waterfront (it’s funny how so many things come back to the Waterfront). Who cares about wasting space down there, just so long as you don’t have a couple of tall buildings disrupting St Helier’s glorious skyline?

Putting arbitrary and nonsensical limits on the height of buildings on the Waterfront will not only produce boring architecture and dense development.

It will also be a waste of space. That represents an enormous missed opportunity to solve many of the Island’s current accommodation problems. Perhaps even some wrinklies might like to live down there if they had the choice.

But that would take time to achieve and we need new sites urgently. The problem is that now the States have been allowed to use up more of the Island’s precious land, the pressure is off and they can go back to sleep.
Peter Body is editor of Business Brief magazine